26 address the relief sought by the applicant. Furthermore, the Court has stated that the exception to this rule is applicable in the case of subsequent facts, i.e. facts occurring after the submission of any of the pleadings in the process (the application; the brief of requests, arguments, and evidence; and the answer to the application.)74 122. In view of the foregoing, and taking into consideration that this is an issue of law rather than an issue of fact, the Court will proceed to the analysis of the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. In that regard, the Court has considered that “a legal process does not constitute, in itself, an illegal violation of the honor and dignity of a person. The process is intended to solve a controversy, even though this may indirectly bring about nuisance for those who are subject to trial.” If the contrary were held, “the resolution of controversies through contentious proceedings would be absolutely barred.”75 Thus, the Court considers that in the instant case the violation of Article 11 of the Convention by the State has not been proven. XII ARTICLE 24 (RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION)76 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 123. The victim’s representative argued that the State violated Article 24 of the Convention; however, it merely alleged said violation without providing the Court with specific arguments in support of such allegations. The representative only stated that said right had been violated to the detriment of Mr. Bueno-Alves, “a foreign national.” 124. The Commission did not submit any arguments regarding the violation of this right. Paragraph 121 of this Judgment applies in this regard. 125. The State rejected these allegations in the same terms as explained in connection with the allegations raised by the representative regarding the violation of Article 11 of the Convention (supra paras. 8 and 120). 126. The Court has noted that, other than the insults allegedly hurled at Mr. BuenoAlves,77 which were analyzed in Chapter IX of this Judgment together with the other allegations of mistreatment, there is no evidence that the victim was subjected to discriminatory treatment. As established in paragraph 82 supra, the torture inflicted upon him was not related to his nationality. 127. Based on the foregoing, the Court has arrived at the conclusion that Article 24 of the Convention has not been violated. XIII 74 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 162; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 43, para. 89, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 68. 75 Cf. Case of Cesti-Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 177. 76 Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention provides that: “[a]ll persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” 77 Cf. Preliminary examination statement of April 8, 1988 (record of appendixes to the application, Volume I, Appendix 8, folio 345).